chickenbig

9 ms·

91.
by chickenbig 1y ago
Hmmm, not a particularly enlightening article. Lots of assertions without numbers. How much does reprocessing cost France? How much does MOX fuel cost France to make? As for the "five percent of nuclear waste, which is composed of long
92.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> Literally a farmer can build a solar power plant. Can the farmer legally connect it to the grid in your location?
93.
by chickenbig 1y ago
Let's not forget the GE-Hitachi (or is that Hitachi-GE) ABWR! CFR Part 52 license (the first one to get it) https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part052/f... , UK GDA license (of a vari
94.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> seems 'ambitious' without any very generous dedicated donation (are you interested in giving?). There was plenty of anti-nuclear money floating about years ago; https://www.influencewatch.org/movement/opp
95.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> Nobody knows. A new exploration campaign is running Would have thought a long-term study of these sites would have already been underway, given their apparent potential hazard. Surely Greenpeace would want such a study to back up their
96.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> Doses now tolerated are way below those of ancient dumps. Do those old dumps generate high doses? Is there evidence of the high doses generated, and if so why isn't this on the wikipedia page? I'm not able to tell whether the
97.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> > Moreover the dust escaping from a nuclear plant may be ... > > What sort of dust is this? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionuclide So this not dust escaping during normal operation. This is an im
98.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era Mass of material dumped is not the same as radioactivity or potential harm caused. It looks as if "de minimis" is the key phrase in the conve
99.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> not sure what the mechanism for this was, however. Boosting (injection of deuterium/tritium into the centre of the pit) causes a large increase in yield because fusion generates lots of high energy neutrons that go on to fast fiss
100.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> > > AFAIK no expert now states that ocean disposal is OK > > Disposal of small amounts of radioactive material at sea and into the air happens > It doesn't imply that it is an adequate way to dispose of it. My point
101.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> Yes. The grid needs to be expanded by 1.5 - 2.5x no matter what to electrify society and industry. It is unclear that the grid needs to expand by that much if energy is consumed close to where it is produced, or if energy can be consum
102.
by chickenbig 1y ago
Thank you for providing numbers that guide your thinking. > - $63/kWh [2] installed and serviced for 20 years = $0.063B per GWh The Lazard source does provide costs for storage on page 44, ranging from about 3x to 6x the cost of tha
103.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> Whatever they believe or not isn't impeding others' lifes. The principle is that we don't seek unanimity before proceeding with something. > this is a settled matter since at least 1972 Disposal of small amounts of ra
104.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> The bar is the comparison with the other set of pertinent electricity-generating equipments: renewables. > A "large portion" isn't all Setting the bar too high. > The LNT debate isn't settled Indeed the eviden
105.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree. Disagreement is natural in science as well as engineering. And absolutes are not. Framing nuclear waste disposal, or in fact any enterprise, in term
106.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> so far from just citizens And so we come back to the point of the story. Hopefully Germany will stop indirectly funding anti-nuclear organisations that seek to influence other countries. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/d
107.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> With Vogtles $36.9B we are able to build the equivalent supply in renewables (in TWh) and 10 days of storage at Vogtles 2.2 GWe output. I can't see what you are proposing to do with the $36.9B. How does this break down into GW of
108.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> doesn't show many >90% numbers The US achieves over 90% capacity factor, as does Finland, and Germany used to. Also capacity and availability are different things; getting pre-empted by solar should not count against the nuclea
109.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> In Australia it was calculated that the extra grid upgrades for renewables comes out to $15B. AEMO report from 2024 [1] page 13 note 2 very carefully draws the line around what the extra 16B AUD will pay for. This value is the ne
110.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> - Would you want to pay much more for electricity than would be possible using cheaper sources than nuclear, either directly, or hidden through taxes (as in France)? As opposed to subsidies of intermittents [0]? > - Do you want your
111.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> There are dissenting opinions Flat earthers exist too. > In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal. The link you gave did not list the effects of ocean disposal; elevated and measurable are not the
112.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> Neither citizens nor power companies want that. It looks as if some citizens want it. https://anschalt-konferenz.de/english/
113.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> A cheap system is a combination of cheap components, land, and the labor required to assemble it. The point is that cheap components may require the use of other components to compensate for its deficiencies, and so on. Solar panels ne
114.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> No containment is perfect. You set the bar too high. Radiation isn't an all-or-nothing phenomenon; we are exposed to background radiation all the time, so expecting perfection is unjustified. Also a large portion of radioactivity
115.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> Btw, not "all" nuclear is not considered renewable. There are perhaps two things being considered here, the EU Renewable Energy Directive [1] and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities [2]. The former results in France be
116.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> the cheapest additional nuclear capacity costs more than the most expensive grid scale batteries. Nuclear capacity and grid batteries do different things, so the word capacity is rather too imprecise. Otherwise one could argue that a l
117.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> All of the components of renewables, including PV modules and storage, seem to be following an inverse exponential in price. Definitely not true of offshore wind. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44012502 Also it s
118.
by chickenbig 1y ago
> experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution What is their definition of safe? > It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again It would be good to see the cost/benefit analysis of the proposal to remove
119.
by chickenbig 1y ago
https://archive.is/pJpDt
120.
Germany drops opposition to nuclear power in rapprochement with France(ft.com)
49 points by chickenbig 1y ago|124 comments

More ›